1
- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Judge Boasberg to the rescue again.
Posted on 10/29/26 at 9:24 pm to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 10/29/26 at 9:24 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Do you have any evidence to suggest the allotment was improper?
Your such a dishonest clown.
Posted on 10/29/26 at 9:26 pm to Salviati
quote:
Boasberg could have decided six other cases in a way that caused problems for your political sources and raised your ire.
Stop the bullshite. The dude is an activist. Just be honest about it.
Posted on 10/29/26 at 9:33 pm to Salviati
quote:
Your problem is that you're starting with a faulty premise.
No councilor the premise is set. What are the odds that he was chosen out of 15 judges for the cases that he was assigned over compared to the amount of cases that is brought to this circuit? The number is astronomical. Just use your AI and it will show you.
Posted on 10/29/26 at 9:34 pm to BHTiger
quote:I'm pretty sure I said that Boasberg will make the same percentage of decisions that you don't like regardless of which cases he is randomly assigned.quote:Stop the bullshite. The dude is an activist. Just be honest about it.
Boasberg could have decided six other cases in a way that caused problems for your political sources and raised your ire.
Posted on 10/29/26 at 10:02 pm to Warboo
quote:1 in 15
What are the odds that he was chosen out of 15 judges for the cases that he was assigned over compared to the amount of cases that is brought to this circuit?
I don't need AI.
Posted on 10/30/26 at 6:51 am to Salviati
quote:
1 in 15
It is 1 in 15 for him to be assigned a individual case. What are the odds that he gets all of the cases rather than one of the other 14 judges? The number is astronomical.
Posted on 10/30/26 at 6:55 am to Django Unchained
quote:
Turn it into a little reality TV show!
Or a romcom called, “How I met my brother.”
Posted on 10/30/26 at 9:26 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
I believe the judges are randomly allotted via computer in the DC circuit
Posted on 10/30/26 at 9:29 am to BFIV
Remember, the most corrupt body in DC is the SSCI ….. the SSCI protects the FISA Court (Boasberg) …. and in return, the FISA Courts protects members of Congress as determined by the SSCI. This is the way the Legislative and Judicial Branches protect each other ….. mutual corruption.
LINK
quote:
At this point it’s not funny how this happens.
In reality those who follow DC events will note this is almost an exact replay of earlier Lawfare battles surrounding the FISA warrant public release. Same characters, same arguments, same players, same corrupt intents. [Redacted DOJ Filing Here]
In 2017/2018 the issue was corrupt DC interests arguing for the public release of a top secret classified document, the title-1 FISA surveillance warrant used against Carter Page. The warrant was already leaked to the media on March 17, 2017, when the lawfare assembly later wanted to exploit it.
In the 2026 re-run, the issue surrounds the DHS/HSI search warrant executed against Ilhan Omar. The DOJ wants to keep it sealed until the warrant has been fully executed, implying there are alternative parties who have been requested to provide additional information.
The Lawfare group want the search warrant details released to the public now so the allied group can organize and exploit public defenses. Neither the FISA warrant nor a HSI search warrant had/have ever been released prior to full execution therein. DC Judge James Boasberg, a horrible man of intemperate and corrupt disposition, will now decide the release of the latter.
LINK
This post was edited on 10/30/26 at 9:35 am
Posted on 10/30/26 at 9:44 am to Warboo
quote:1 in 15
It is 1 in 15 for him to be assigned a individual case. What are the odds that he gets all of the cases rather than one of the other 14 judges? The number is astronomical.
Posted on 10/30/26 at 10:41 am to Salviati
quote:
1 in 15
You are not to bright it appears. Statistics is not your thing.
Posted on 10/30/26 at 10:59 am to BHTiger
quote:
Your such a dishonest clown.
Slippin' Jimmy got his law degree through correspondence courses from the University of American Samoa.
Posted on 10/30/26 at 11:28 am to Warboo
quote:I understand how the process works. Do you?
You are not to bright it appears. Statistics is not your thing.
And I understand why you don't understand the probability issue. Do you want me to explain it to you? Happy to help educate you.
Posted on 10/30/26 at 11:47 am to Salviati
quote:
And I understand why you don't understand the probability issue. Do you want me to explain it to you? Happy to help educate you
Go ahead …. enlighten us, esquire.
Tell us how the other judges use conflict of interest recusals, vacations, and workload calendars to avoid being in the available pool ….. ‘splain it to us, esquire
While you’re at it, ‘splain SCOTUs Roberts’ role in this “fair” selection & assignment process.
This post was edited on 10/30/26 at 11:50 am
Posted on 10/30/26 at 1:16 pm to cadillacattack
quote:It's very simple really. First, let's recapitulate your position. There are six or so Boasberg decisions that you do not like ("BDYDNL"). You believe that the six cases resulting in the six BDYDNL were improperly funneled to him rather than being randomly allotted to him. Otherwise, the likelihood that Boasberg was randomly assigned those six cases is (1/15)^6 or 1 in 11,390,625 or about 0.0000088%.
Go ahead …. enlighten us, esquire.
Tell us how the other judges use conflict of interest recusals, vacations, and workload calendars to avoid being in the available pool ….. ‘splain it to us, esquire
Second, let's correct your faulty assumption. You seem to assume: (1) there were only six cases filed in the D.D.C. that could have resulted in BDYDNL, and (2) all six cases were assigned to Boasberg. You fail to consider that many cases were filed in the D.D.C., some of those cases may have resulted in BDYDNL, but those cases were randomly assigned to other judges who made decisions that did not alarm anyone.
Third, let's use some hypothetical examples. Consider, for example, what would happen if there were 90 cases filed in the D.D.C. that could have resulted in BDYDNL. About 84 of those cases could have been randomly assigned to the other 14 judges and not resulted in BDYDNL. Only about six of those cases would have been randomly assigned to Boasberg, and thus, resulted in BDYDNL.
Or consider this example. You and fourteen other posters are randomly assigned to make posts. You and the fourteen other posters are given a total of 90 opportunities to post. You are assigned 6 of the 90 posts. Every post you make is a shitty post. People might think that you were secretly assigned to make shitty posts. In truth, however, any 1 of the 90 possible posts would have been a shitty post if it was assigned to you. It just happens that no one paid much attention to the other 84 posts made by the fourteen other posters.
Fourth, you seem to believe that only Boasberg makes decisions that you do not like. There have been several decisions by the other 14 D.D.C. judges that have angered conservatives. For example:
Judge Tanya Chutkan
United States v. Donald J. Trump involved the federal criminal prosecution regarding election interference and the events of January 6. Judge Chutkan's rulings on strict protective orders, scheduling timelines, and constitutional immunity have been a focal point of intense MAGA criticism.
Trump v. Thompson was a lawsuit filed by Trump seeking to block the House January 6th Select Committee from accessing White House records. Judge Chutkan denied Trump’s claim of executive privilege, leading to her widely cited statement that "presidents are not kings, and Plaintiff is not President."
The January 6 criminal cases involved numerous individual criminal cases against January 6 defendants. Judge Chutkan drew consistent criticism for handing down prison sentences that frequently matched or exceeded the penalties requested by federal prosecutors.
Judges Beryl Howell, Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, and Tanya Chutkan
In re January 6 Federal Dismissals involved the coordinated post-pardon motions submitted by the DOJ to formally close the criminal files of over 1,500 January 6 defendants. While all three judges granted the individual case dismissals following Trump's broad sweep of pardons, the Judges authored scathing final opinions. They explicitly called the administration's description of a "national injustice" a "revisionist myth" and went out of their way to establish a historical judicial record condemning the event.
Judge Richard Leon
District of Columbia v. National Park Service & GSA was a civil dispute stemming from a rapid, executive-backed construction initiative to build a 250-foot triumphal monument and expand administrative building space near the National Mall. Judge Leon rejected the administration's expedited legal reasoning. He issued a sharp rebuke stating that he had no intention of being "dragooned into the role of construction manager" for a project operating outside of standard statutory zoning rules.
Judge Ana Reyes
Rock Creek Golf Course Reconfiguration Disputes was administrative litigation involving the localized fast-tracking of construction plans at a public golf course under executive authority. When Trump posted on social media that construction would begin on a hard November deadline regardless of the court timeline, Judge Reyes admonished the government's posture in open court and purposefully read aloud the specific ethical and judicial codes of conduct concerning presenting false information to a tribunal.
Judge Royce Lamberth
United States v. Freeman included a public reprimand integrated into January 6 criminal sentencing actions. Judge Lamberth issued a widely publicized, unusual seven-page court declaration explicitly calling out political actors for spreading "preposterous and destructive misinformation" by characterizing convicted January 6 defendants as political "hostages."
Posted on 10/31/26 at 11:37 am to Salviati
quote:
Under the Constitution, Congress has exclusive legislative authority over D.C. Because it is a federal district and not a state, it lacks a state court framework to process federal-level lawsuits.
There’s no reason “a federal level lawsuit” whatever the hell that means, can’t be tried in an actual state. DC isn’t a state. There is no reason for there to be a trial level district court, or an intermediate appellate court there. Zero. All it does is centralize power in DC, and requires federal issues, which affect people in all actual states - to be determined there.
Spare me that only a lawyer situated in DC has the understanding of such complex legal issues that it can’t be duplicated somewhere else.
the United States Code applies all over the country and somehow us poor ole country lawyers are able to figure it out. Posted on 10/31/26 at 11:42 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
This case doesn't involve Trump
You really are a bawling infant.
This post was edited on 10/31/26 at 11:42 am
Posted on 11/1/26 at 11:31 pm to Wednesday
quote:Ouch! It appears we have some remedial work to do here.quote:There’s no reason “a federal level lawsuit” whatever the hell that means, can’t be tried in an actual state. DC isn’t a state. There is no reason for there to be a trial level district court, or an intermediate appellate court there. Zero.
Under the Constitution, Congress has exclusive legislative authority over D.C. Because it is a federal district and not a state, it lacks a state court framework to process federal-level lawsuits.
First, let's talk about federalism. The political system in the United States is split between the federal government and state governments. You can think of it as two overlapping systems or levels: (1) the "federal system" or "federal level" and (2) the state level. This split-level structure allows state governments to manage local matters while the federal government oversees national issues. Because power is divided, the U.S. maintains separate state and federal court systems to interpret and enforce these distinct systems or levels of laws.
Second, let's talk about venue. Venue rules dictate the specific geographic location or courthouse where a lawsuit must be filed. Venue usually ties the lawsuit to the location where the events occurred or where the defendant resides. For example, criminal acts are typically filed in the location where the crime occurred. As another example, the Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure requires lawsuits to be filed where the defendant is domiciled, resides, or located. La. C.C.P. art. 42.
Third, as you eloquently note, "DC isn't a state." Obviously, you can't have a state court in a geographic region that is not a state. Moreover, our founding fathers determined that lawsuits involving the "federal system" or "federal level" may require their own courts; hence, the federal judiciary.
Fourth, a federal trial court, specifically the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, is essential because Washington, D.C., is the seat of the federal government and it is not located in a state. Thus, the D.D.C. is the legally proper venue for federal level crimes committed in D.C. and challenges to federal actions. Under venue rules, following hundreds of years of common law tradition, lawsuits targeting federal agencies, official regulations, or national policy generally must be filed where those decisions are made (where the defendant is located).
Page 3 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News